Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29[edit]

Category:People associated with Ludwig van Beethoven[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see James Joyce, below Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, association is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The reader is to be deprived of useful information, for the sake of the application of rigorous logic to the highest degree imaginable. AtticTapestry (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and listify Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, in order to convey the information without violating WP:OCASSOC. A list would be more useful for navigation because it actually explains the relationship. buidhe 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with James Joyce[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:OCASSOC. Scholars and translators should be upmerged to parent. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What does 'upmerge' mean? You have been bulk-emptying categories of any articles about people, on the grounds that either "We do not categorise people by other people." or else that a category is "is not a people category". Now here's one where your implied need for categories containing people to be more specific has been met. This is clearly both a 'people category' and yet one that is sub-categorized below simply being an 'other people' category, i.e. James Joyce. Yet still, you want rid. If these were upmerged to Joyce, wouldn't you then remove them altogether, as you have been doing? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the guideline, which clearly explains why these kinds of categories are so problematic? This might technically be a "people category", but it is not an appropriate one for reasons explained there. Sorry for the confusion regarding the scholars and translators. I mean for them to become subcategories of Category:James Joyce. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the most obvious connection, Nora Barnacle. Because otherwise how will you represent her (pretty obvious) association with Joyce and his works? Or Sylvia Beach, to avoid the "wives aren't notable" dogma. Now if you see "James Joyce" as too simplistic, then I don't, but I can see a point to that. In which case the fix is to make the category more specific, which is just what this has already done. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Nora Barnacle could be placed in a Category:James Joyce family (or similar) category as recommended at the guideline. Sylvia Beach has the subjective and arbitrary problem explained in the guideline, as does Ezra Pound. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, including moving the scholars and translators subcategories to Category:James Joyce. Categorizing by association is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Beethoven, above. AtticTapestry (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and listify Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per comment on previous CfD. buidhe 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with Thomas Telford[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify then delete. Listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see James Joyce, above Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, categorization by association is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Beethoven, above. AtticTapestry (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I wonder if the solution to this may not be to listify: a list can say how the person was associated. The people should all be mentioned in the bio-article, but it is a long one, so that they do not stand out. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People diagnosed with Huntington's disease[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder below. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 13:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last month, I successfully requested that Category:People diagnosed with dyslexia be renamed Category:People with dyslexia for consistency, and I also agree with Marcocapelle's comment on that CfD about formal diagnoses often being unverifiable. For those reasons, I want this category to be renamed as well. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance I do not see BLP issues with the articles currently in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Overly verbose title. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nostalgia songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What the hell is a "nostalgia song"? The current title isn't gramatically correct at all. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No problem with a rename to Category:Songs about nostalgia; I even suggested it be renamed to that in its first discussion here last year. Hiddenstranger (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I question that this is even a defining characteristic. What makes a song about nostalgia, as opposed to longing, the past, etc.? buidhe 23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been nominated for deletion before, see category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with color blindness[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. ƏXPLICIT 11:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just requested that the corresponding list, List of people with color blindness, be moved to List of colorblind people. I'm requesting that this category be renamed for the same reason. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears:The RM for the list has been closed as no consensus, and this CfD has surpassed the seven-day period. How do I close it?ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 10:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporgaze you (or I) should not close this discussion as we are involved making it hard to be impartial. Someone uninvolved can come around and close this discussion anytime now, but it may take a while. Just for clarity and to make it easier for an eventual closer, do you still support renaming the category given that the list was not moved? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears:No, I no longer support the move.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_29&oldid=995136390"